Winnipeg Construction IX

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Question for TV as an outsider – it seems like a lot of these local architecture companies producing a lot of these basic, cheap designs (that they would deem "modern") are borne of recent, young U of M grads... has the school lost is way? Or does the problem fall moreso on the developers and city for being cheap and approving ugly, respectively?

Although some, and I blame barcode a bit here, are really enthralled by the idea of making use of 'industrial' materials (corrugated sheet metal, etc.), my guess is that a lot of this comes down to the economics of developing rather than the architects' training.

Here's an example (same firm as the teal monstrosity on Gertrude).

Here's their initial design for 54 Maryland:



Here's the thing as built:



"value engineering" 😂😂

[buzzg]

I actually like the way that building turned out. Sure, it's not as nice as the render with the decorative bars, but the angles of the different floors, varying materials, and wood on the main floor make it leaps and bounds better than that junk proposed on Wellington, and some of the Village-area condos that have gone up recently.

[bomberjet]

^^Cheaped out to the max on that one. Went from Floor to ceiling windows, with nice consistent finish. To sheet metal and crappy windows.

They did add balconies with hideous railings though.

[buzzg]

In the West Broadway thread we've been talking about the how the city has held the Westminister Flats developer to their approved design, making them now change it for a second time it appears, which is great, however, as I said there...

This all begs the question – why doesn't the city impose these design standards on more buildings, and not approve the shitty ones. I applaud the city in this case for making the developer stick to the approved design, however they should also be rejecting poor ones from the start. All this is going to do is make developers just propose junk so it gets approved as junk.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Question for TV as an outsider – it seems like a lot of these local architecture companies producing a lot of these basic, cheap designs (that they would deem "modern") are borne of recent, young U of M grads... has the school lost is way? Or does the problem fall moreso on the developers and city for being cheap and approving ugly, respectively?

I'm not an architect, and not defending 254 Wellington's design in particular, but most of what I've seen of these younger upstart firms doing infill projects is they're managing to do good design for risky projects that have low capital and low returns.

What would you do if you were a young graduate wanting to stay in Winnipeg in 2018 instead? Turn down what work does come your way? Sell your soul and work at Seymour Pacific designing cartoon suburban crap, waiting for the bigger established firms to hire you to design high-quality legacy projects? Even at the city's bigger established firms, you're still going to be desperately fighting clients against building cheap tasteless junk.

The real world of design and planning is a game of inches. You don't step out of grad school and build every great idea you came up with in the studio. Instead, you slowly build up your reputation and portfolio by fighting the countless little battles: for good quality siding, for one more window, for a better roofline, for parking slightly less parking, for at least some colour. Do that and hopefully better clients take notice.

[buzzg]

Yeah, that's why I'm asking. I never said that new grads should turn down work or sell their soul... If your point is correct than it would be fair to say it falls on the developers, but even moreso the city.

[wardlow]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Yeah, that's why I'm asking. I never said that new grads should turn down work or sell their soul... If your point is correct than it would be fair to say it falls on the developers, but even moreso the city.

Yeah, I don't think the Faculty of Architecture is promoting crappy design principles (unless one wants to debate contemporary architecture styles vs. traditional or something). I think they're definitely trying to get students thinking as big and as imaginative as possible so they can hopefully carry some of that into the real world.

And yeah I'd imagine Trueviking has a lot of insight into this.

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Although some, and I blame barcode a bit here, are really enthralled by the idea of making use of 'industrial' materials (corrugated sheet metal, etc.), my guess is that a lot of this comes down to the economics of developing rather than the architects' training.

Here's an example (same firm as the teal monstrosity on Gertrude).

Here's their initial design for 54 Maryland:



Here's the thing as built:



"value engineering" 😂😂

The rendering was fine but the final project looks vomitous!

[drew]

Originally Posted by BAKGUY

The rendering was fine but the final project looks vomitous!

That render is just a picture. A piece of art if you'd rather.

Really, once you understand that those large windows:

A) need support above, like a lintel and
B) are comically large and not realistic

The final product isn't that much different.

They deleted those decorative black frames, but really, looking at that render, that's the first thing to go once a budget starts to formalize.

I like that how both the ones at Maryland/Wolseley and at Maryland/Westminster turned out. They are a step in the right direction.

[peg]

As a student entering the 3rd year in Faculty of Architecture I'd say they're doing a fine job. Most of our projects and designs thus far have been very conceptual to help teach us the tools and principles of design. Judging from my years work and the higher years work I wouldn't say they are teaching these basic cheap designs but I would say the industrial aesthetic seems to be in. That being said its not in the form of cheap tin siding lol.
I would say that the problem probably lies more with the developer side of things, though that is more beyond my knowledge as a student.

[GlassCity]

I agree, but I wouldn't even go so far as to just blame the developers. Obviously they're interested in higher profits so some details get put aside, but overall it seems like the market is somewhat precarious here, and it's hard to make relatively high land values and relatively low housing prices come together. People have to be willing to pay more for condos that are in nice buildings, and considering one can get a house on your own land in many neighbourhoods for the price of an inner-city condo, it starts to make sense that they're not built as nice (read: expensive) as they could be.

[buzzg]

I think if they lost the railing, that building would look great – that's what hurts it. Also that's an old picture – papered windows and lack of landscaping aren't helping it.

[bomberjet]

The white metal makes it look cheap. Go with the brown everywhere and it wouldn't look so odd.

[Andy6]

I like it. Looks homey and authentic and fits with the spirit of the neighbourhood.

[Urban recluse]

Perhaps if the infrastructure around it was new, and there was nice landscaping, it would look better.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

^^Cheaped out to the max on that one. Went from Floor to ceiling windows, with nice consistent finish. To sheet metal and crappy windows.

They did add balconies with hideous railings though.

Went from swan to turd, it's a Manitoba thing!

[Xtoval]

Originally Posted by Andy6

I like it. Looks homey and authentic and fits with the spirit of the neighbourhood.

Please Andy, don't impose your St. Vital values on my old hood¡

[Ando]

Sorry, I wasn’t focusing on that building, I don’t have any issue with it, especially what it is replacing. I was reacting to the idea that surfaces here continually that the Exchange is only being maintained for movie set vistas. I don’t have a lot of faith in the City respecting the importance of maintaining the historic character.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Xtoval

Please Andy, don't impose your St. Vital values on my old hood¡

Resistance is futile.

[DowntownBooster]

Originally Posted by drew

That render is just a picture. A piece of art if you'd rather.

Really, once you understand that those large windows:

A) need support above, like a lintel and
B) are comically large and not realistic

The final product isn't that much different.

They deleted those decorative black frames, but really, looking at that render, that's the first thing to go once a budget starts to formalize.

I like that how both the ones at Maryland/Wolseley and at Maryland/Westminster turned out. They are a step in the right direction.

The final product is totally different. The only thing similar is the shape. Other than that they look nothing alike. Rather than even bothering with a fancy design they could easily have come out with a rendering that resembled the final product.